Talk:Relevance logic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Relevant vs relevance

I propose we change the preferred name to relevance logic. Pro:

  1. It is the spelling prefered by the standard-setting Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  2. It is the term preferred in the topic defining Anderson and Belnap
  3. It is marginally more popular according to google:
    • "relevant logic" -> 2900 hits, and 30 for intitle:"relevant logic"
    • "relevance logic" -> 3090 hits, and 56 for intitle:"relevance logic"

I concur. Further pros:

  1. Most of the prose in this article is mine anyway; I developed a stub that already existed under "Relevant", though I'd have preferred "Relevance." Does that give my opinion some weight?
  2. Those google stats probably understate the matter: "relevant logic" can also occur as a modified common noun rather than as a proper name, as in: "In order to research his paper, he read through all the relevant logic texts." All the logic texts, that is, relevant to his paper. User:136.142.22.242

Cons:

  1. Conservatism ---- Charles Stewart 20 Oct 2004